Crazywisdom wrote:Science and philosophy are basically irrelevant to a Buddhism. Buddhism goes much farther. Chulen and rainbow body will never be explained by science or philosophy. These are real nonetheless and wholly owned by the Triple Gem.

The discussion is in the "Lounge" sub-forum and thus does not need to relate to Buddhism. Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

I think it's funny NDT dismisses philosophy, when he himself waxes it obnoxiously about space (Just like Sagan did, who I also happen to like.), Apparently he doesn't realize his own need for philosophy and the connectedness and deep feelings deprived from it.

I find the universe fascinating without some pretty little song in the background. this just feels pandering.﻿
Reply

Someone Else's reply to the above comment:

LeLucky90
2 months ago

The information shared in the video doesn't need music to be understood that is true... But the music triggers some emotional reaction as well which is important for normal human beings.﻿
Reply

This is the sentiment I can't stand in the science community, it's just the deep scathing hatred, dismissal and obnoxious Cynicism they believe makes them superior scientists, when all it really does is make them terrible human beings (And worse scientists imho.) I think they confuse healthy skepticism for their own lack of understanding about their own minds and feelings, too afraid to face death, reality and their smallness they un-wittingly wield this ridiculous behavior like it's a badge of honor.

“Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire” – Epictetus

Jesse wrote:
This is the sentiment I can't stand in the science community, it's just the deep scathing hatred, dismissal and obnoxious Cynicism they believe makes them superior scientists, when all it really does is make them terrible human beings (And worse scientists imho.) I think they confuse healthy skepticism for their own lack of understanding about their own minds and feelings, too afraid to face death, reality and their smallness they un-wittingly wield this ridiculous behavior like it's a badge of honor.

But do you prefer flaky New Age-type people who will believe just about anything which is vaguely spiritual and pleasant-sounding?

Personally, I would much prefer to be around scientists who could care less about religion than to be around flaky New Age people who believe in all kinds of silly things like healing crystals, tarot cards, etc.! lol

Some scientists might be jerks, but at least they are jerks who can give accurate predictions about physical phenomena and/or who can build useful things.

Jesse wrote:
This is the sentiment I can't stand in the science community, it's just the deep scathing hatred, dismissal and obnoxious Cynicism they believe makes them superior scientists, when all it really does is make them terrible human beings (And worse scientists imho.) I think they confuse healthy skepticism for their own lack of understanding about their own minds and feelings, too afraid to face death, reality and their smallness they un-wittingly wield this ridiculous behavior like it's a badge of honor.

But do you prefer flaky New Age-type people who will believe just about anything which is vaguely spiritual and pleasant-sounding?

Personally, I would much prefer to be around scientists who could care less about religion than to be around flaky New Age people who believe in all kinds of silly things like healing crystals, tarot cards, etc.! lol

Some scientists might be jerks, but at least they are jerks who can give accurate predictions about physical phenomena and/or who can build useful things.

I prefer to find a rational middle ground, where rationality and spirituality work together, not contradict each-other. A healthy person needs to find a balance of both. Which elements a person needs may vary, depending on their personalities and minds, but I tend to fall into extremes, so I know both behaviors well. I tend to either flip totally one way or the other, and finding the balance is very difficult.

“Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire” – Epictetus

Luke wrote:
But do you prefer flaky New Age-type people who will believe just about anything which is vaguely spiritual and pleasant-sounding?

Personally, I would much prefer to be around scientists who could care less about religion than to be around flaky New Age people who believe in all kinds of silly things like healing crystals, tarot cards, etc.! lol

Some scientists might be jerks, but at least they are jerks who can give accurate predictions about physical phenomena and/or who can build useful things.

Since the question was, what type of people do you prefer to be around? Of course, I prefer to be around positive, fun people regardless of their beliefs rather than jerks who are always finding fault with others. I'm surprised anyone would answer otherwise. What should I care if they believe in crystals or tarot cards? A bit of eccentricity adds some flavor to the mix.

To defend scientistists though, the ones I know are mostly decent people. The skeptics movement is mostly a collection of wanna bes, though there are a few high profile scientists.

Luke wrote:
But do you prefer flaky New Age-type people who will believe just about anything which is vaguely spiritual and pleasant-sounding?

Personally, I would much prefer to be around scientists who could care less about religion than to be around flaky New Age people who believe in all kinds of silly things like healing crystals, tarot cards, etc.! lol

Some scientists might be jerks, but at least they are jerks who can give accurate predictions about physical phenomena and/or who can build useful things.

Since the question was, what type of people do you prefer to be around? Of course, I prefer to be around positive, fun people regardless of their beliefs rather than jerks who are always finding fault with others. I'm surprised anyone would answer otherwise. What should I care if they believe in crystals or tarot cards? A bit of eccentricity adds some flavor to the mix.

To defend scientistists though, the ones I know are mostly decent people. The skeptics movement is mostly a collection of wanna bes, though there are a few high profile scientists.

This has been my experience as well.

And I agree, I really would rather be around people who don't live their lives feeling perpetually aggrieved by the beliefs of others, regardless of their own beliefs.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

And I agree, I really would rather be around people who don't live their lives feeling perpetually aggrieved by the beliefs of others, regardless of their own beliefs.

Most other people's beliefs don't bother me, but I guess I feel that as a Buddhist in the west, I am always in danger of being associated with New Age people because a lot of westerners don't understand the difference between Buddhism and New Age stuff ("Oh god, you're not one of those flakes, are you?").

It seems that the Dalai Lama understands this, as well, because he is always at conferences with scientists, Buddhists, or people who practice the other major world religions. I have never seen him, for example, talk at some New Age event.

I still think challenging the current notion in the science community at large, that anti-philosophy, hard-core materialism (And the Cynicism that usually goes with it these days.) doesn't really represent science accurately. It creates a divided environment between science and religion when there really shouldn't be one. It distances people from science when it shouldn't, and distances others from religion/spirituality and philosophy when it shouldn't.

Philosophy has been driving science for decades, and we still need especially considering the weight of our recent advances. Genetics, Information Collection, Statistics(Eavesdropping, wiretapping, etc), Nano-technology, Cloning etc, Philosophy is the forum to discuss these and other issues IMHO, and that may be argued, but it has done a pretty good job so far.

Science doesn't belong to one group of people, it's the collective advancement of humanity.

And back on topic I actually love NDT, and space/philosophy that goes with it. Loved Sagan too, total trek-nerd, one of my secret wishes is to discover aliens within our life-time, (Or be alive for the advent of a warp-drive/Replicator).

“Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire” – Epictetus

Jesse wrote:
And back on topic I actually love NDT, and space/philosophy that goes with it. Loved Sagan too, total trek-nerd, one of my secret wishes is to discover aliens within our life-time, (Or be alive for the advent of a warp-drive/Replicator).

And I agree, I really would rather be around people who don't live their lives feeling perpetually aggrieved by the beliefs of others, regardless of their own beliefs.

Most other people's beliefs don't bother me, but I guess I feel that as a Buddhist in the west, I am always in danger of being associated with New Age people because a lot of westerners don't understand the difference between Buddhism and New Age stuff ("Oh god, you're not one of those flakes, are you?").

It seems that the Dalai Lama understands this, as well, because he is always at conferences with scientists, Buddhists, or people who practice the other major world religions. I have never seen him, for example, talk at some New Age event.

I really wasn't referring to any particular post or set of beliefs believe it or not, most of my friends are materialists, but I also have friends who are Christians, New Agers etc.

I try not to care about enacting change to other people's beliefs about anything, it can be a useful ting for sure to look at philosophy, point out inconsistencies when it's necessary or beneficial to both parties to have that kind of conversation..but listening to any ideology ramble on soapbox -style isn't that fun, materialists as well as New Agers and Christians do that, that's samsara I guess, everyone is drunk on their correctness.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

^Hmmm, reading posts on this forum can lead to lots of self-reflection... Perhaps I could work on being more accepting of different types of people. Retaining my Buddhist beliefs firmly in my mind doesn't mean that I have to project hostility towards opposing ideas outwardly. All obstacles are created in the mind...

Listening to Dawkins drone on about how religion is a brain disorder is as annoying to me as (since it was an example given earlier) as people who oppose vaccinations with no empirical evidence. I would add that holding to either position can also definitely mean developing ideas which are harmful to other people.

I lean far to the left politically/socially, but sometimes I find my fellow liberal/progressives/whatever to have nearly as poor arguments as plenty of conservative ideologues I know, even if I agree with their actual positions.

In the case of anti-vaxxers, sticking your kids around someone immuno-compromised for instance, based on no real evidence - irresponsible for sure. In the case of "New Atheists", it can be a sort of support of the status quo..including imperialism for example, like a new, science-based White Man's Burden. Maybe some people remember when Hitchens supported the Iraq war, there are a lot of arguments coming from this corner of thought that amount to "civilizing" those with what they consider primitive beliefs - a position with some abysmal real-world precedents.

Seriously, we listen to anyone long enough, including ourselves, and I think it's easy to get exasperated.

Again though, I generally like DGT, I like some things that Sam Harris writes, i'm just pretty convinced the speak outside their area of expertise pretty regularly...they are public intellectuals, who publish all kinds of opinions which are not in any sense "science" but when another intellectual (say Thomas Nagel) says something they don't like, they go off about how unscientific it is. As if Sam Harris' arguments about racial profiling are somehow based on "science", rather than his subjective worldview.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”